A robbery accusation requires immediate attention, because it can arise from very different situations: an assault committed to take property, a theft followed by a push during escape, a threat attributed to the wrong person, or conduct committed together with others. If you are under investigation or a defendant in Milan, it is natural to wonder which episode is being alleged, what evidence exists, and how much the aggravating factors indicated in the document weigh.
In this guide I will explain the difference between own and improper robbery, when the offense is completed or merely attempted, and why the reconstruction of individual actions can change the legal classification. We will also examine how to read the evidence, what arrest and a precautionary measure entail, and which procedural choices can be considered without anticipating conclusions that depend on the case files.
When an offense is classified as robbery
Robbery combines an offense against property and one against the person. Article 628 of the criminal code requires the appropriation of someone else's movable property, the purpose of obtaining unfair profit, and the use of violence or threat. The profit does not necessarily have to have a high value: even taking a modest asset can constitute the crime when all other elements are present.
Own robbery: violence precedes appropriation
In own robbery, violence or threat serves to take possession of the asset. This happens, for example, when a person intimidates the holder of a phone and takes it away or pushes them to snatch an object. The aggressive conduct precedes or accompanies the appropriation and is the means used to overcome the victim's resistance.
Violence may also consist of physical force that is not particularly intense, while the threat can be expressed with words, gestures, or concretely intimidating methods. The context is decisive: an isolated phrase should not be separated from the distance between the people, the movements made, the objects shown, and the victim's concrete possibility to resist.
Improper robbery: violence follows appropriation
In improper robbery, appropriation comes first. Violence or threat is used immediately afterward to retain the asset or to avoid identification, arrest, or other consequences. This is the case of a person who takes merchandise and, immediately reached by a store employee, threatens or strikes them to get away.
The temporal sequence alone is not enough: there must be a functional link between the appropriation and the subsequent assault. The basic provisions and penalties of Article 628 result from the text of Article 628 amended by Law No. 36 of April 26, 2019, to be read together with subsequent interventions by the Constitutional Court.
Penalties and aggravating factors: what really changes
The unaggravated form is severely punished: Article 628 provides for imprisonment from five to ten years and a fine from 927 to 2,500 euros. For aggravated hypotheses, the ordinary framework rises to imprisonment from six to twenty years and a fine from 2,000 to 4,000 euros. These limits do not indicate the penalty that will necessarily be applied, because the result depends on the recognized fact, circumstances, trial procedure, and penalty determination criteria.
Among the aggravating factors provided by Article 628 are, with distinct prerequisites, the use of weapons, disguise, the action of multiple gathered persons, and particular conditions of the place or the victim. The label reported in the charge is not enough: it is necessary to identify the concrete fact that should constitute the aggravating factor. If a weapon is contested, its nature, availability, and method of use matter; if multiple persons are mentioned, conscious participation and simply being on the scene must be distinguished.
The new hypothesis of the organized group
Not every robbery committed in a group falls under Article 628-bis. Decree-Law No. 23 of February 24, 2026, converted by Law No. 54 of April 24, 2026, introduced a specific provision referring to own robberies committed by an organized group against banks, post offices, ATMs, transport services, or valuables deposits, by means of weapons, explosives, hazardous substances, or violent or sabotage techniques.
For this hypothesis, imprisonment from ten to twenty-five years and a fine from 6,000 to 9,000 euros are provided; in the presence of additional aggravating factors indicated by the rule, the custodial minimum rises to twelve years. The text also contemplates a reduction for the accomplice who disassociates and provides concrete help within the terms established by law. The reference is Article 3 of Decree-Law No. 23 of 2026 coordinated with the conversion law.
The date of the offense remains essential. The new provision cannot be applied retroactively as a more unfavorable discipline. For episodes located around the entry into force of the decree and the amendments of the conversion, it is therefore necessary to precisely identify when the conduct took place and which text was applicable.
Completion, attempt, and minor offense
Own and improper robbery are completed at different times. For own robbery, it is necessary for the offender to acquire independent availability of the asset, even temporarily; if this does not happen for reasons independent of their will, an attempt may be configured. In improper robbery, on the other hand, mere appropriation followed immediately by violence or threat is sufficient, even if the offender fails to subsequently retain possession.
The presence of cameras or security personnel does not automatically exclude appropriation. The Constitutional Court has confirmed that the mere material seizure of the asset may be sufficient for completed improper robbery when followed by the assault required by the rule. If, instead, only acts aimed at appropriation are performed without the asset being taken, subsequent violence aimed at impunity may leave the offense in the attempted form. The distinction is examined by Constitutional Court ruling No. 45 of 2026.
A less serious offense does not automatically become a minor crime, but may benefit from the mitigating factor introduced by the Constitutional Court for own and improper robbery. The penalty can be reduced by up to one third when the nature, means, methods, circumstances, damage, or danger show a truly limited harmfulness. The modest value of the asset, minimal aggression, extemporaneous conduct, and absence of organization are relevant indices, to be considered together according to Constitutional Court ruling No. 86 of 2024.
Evidence that can change the reconstruction
The first question is not how serious the crime is in the abstract, but whether the fact is proven. It is necessary to distinguish the identification of the offender from the demonstration of what they allegedly did. Footage may show a presence without clarifying a threat; testimony may describe the assault without securely identifying all participants.
Video surveillance images must be considered in their complete sequence. Isolated frames may not show who started a contact, when the asset was taken, or what distance separated the people. Temporal continuity also matters: in improper robbery, it must be understood whether the violence is immediately linked to the appropriation or belongs to a separate episode.
Photographic recognitions, clothing descriptions, telephone records, locations, messages, and biological traces have different meanings. No element should be overestimated simply because it appears technical. Telephone data can place a device in an area, not necessarily its user at the precise spot of the event; common clothing may be compatible with many people.
If you were with others, liability remains personal. To attribute complicity in the robbery, material or moral contribution and conscious participation in the offense are required. It is not essential that everyone touches the victim or takes the asset, but mere proximity, a personal relationship, or presence at the scene do not alone demonstrate a criminal agreement.
Arrest, precautionary measure, and right to defense
Arrest is not equivalent to a conviction. Mandatory arrest in flagrante delicto is provided for robbery, but the judge must subsequently verify its lawfulness. A precautionary measure also requires serious indications of guilt and at least one concrete requirement provided by law, such as the risk of flight, tampering with evidence, or repetition, in compliance with adequacy and proportionality.
The seriousness of the charge does not make pre-trial custody in prison automatic. The judge must justify the choice of the measure by considering individual elements and explaining why any less afflictive solutions are not sufficient. The defense can contest both the solidity of the evidence and the timeliness of the precautionary requirements and the suitability of the applied measure.
You have the right to assistance from a defense counsel and may choose not to answer during the interrogation, except to provide the requested personal details. The communication regarding technical defense and the possibility of appointing a trusted lawyer is governed by Article 369-bis of the code of criminal procedure. It is prudent not to improvise fragmentary explanations without knowing the charge and the usable documents.
Which procedural choices can be considered
Strategy depends first of all on the defensive objective. If identification is contested, demonstrating extraneousness to the fact may be central. If presence is not disputed, the crux may concern the absence of violence or threat, the temporal relationship with the appropriation, the lack of participation in others' plans, or the non-existence of a specific aggravating factor.
Ordinary trial allows for the formation of evidence through cross-examination, including the examination of witnesses. Summary trial predominantly uses collected documents and, in the event of conviction for a crime, entails the reduction provided by law. Plea bargaining requires an agreement with the public prosecutor and the judge's review. No procedure is convenient in the abstract: before making a choice, one must consider charges, evidentiary material, evidence requests, and overall consequences.
Returning the asset, compensating the damage, or undertaking a restorative path does not automatically erase the robbery. However, these initiatives can assume relevance in penalty determination or the application of specific mitigating factors, if all prerequisites are met and required deadlines are respected. Direct contact with the offended party should be avoided when it may appear pressing or interfere with the proceedings.
To prepare for an initial consultation, the received document, precautionary orders, an essential timeline, and indications of any footage, messages, or present persons are useful. Keep original data without modifying them and do not coordinate versions with other involved parties. These precautions help protect elements that could be acquired or verified in the proceedings.
Frequently asked questions
Can I be accused of robbery even if nothing was taken?
Yes, an attempt can be contested when suitable acts unequivocally aimed at robbery have been performed, but the crime was not completed for reasons independent of the offender's will. It is necessary to distinguish own robbery from improper robbery, because their threshold of completion does not coincide.
Does a push after a theft always turn the event into improper robbery?
No, a precise connection is needed. The push must immediately follow the appropriation and be aimed at retaining the asset or securing impunity. Temporal distance, motive of the action, and overall dynamics can lead to a different classification; however, even modest physical violence can integrate the requirement when it serves that function.
Do I answer for robbery if I was with others but threatened no one?
It is possible, but not for mere presence. Complicity can also derive from a role as a lookout, transport, support, or conscious reinforcement of the action. However, the prosecution must prove a contribution and the intent to participate in the offense. A personal relationship with the perpetrators does not replace this proof.
Does returning the asset or compensating the victim close the proceedings?
No, reparation does not automatically extinguish robbery. It can affect the penalty, mitigating factors, or a restorative justice path when the conditions provided are met. Modality and timing of the initiative matter; it is advisable to avoid direct contacts that could be interpreted as pressure on the offended party.
Is the court-appointed lawyer free?
No, court-appointed defense and legal aid are different institutions. The court-appointed lawyer ensures assistance when a trusted professional has not been appointed, but must be paid. State-funded legal aid can cover costs only if economic requirements and other conditions established by law are respected.
A timely consultation on the accusation
A reliable defense starts from the contested fact: who allegedly took the asset, when violence was allegedly used, what role others allegedly had, and on what elements identification and aggravating factors are based. If you received a document concerning proceedings for robbery in Milan, you can contact me to understand the content of the accusation and the concretely available options, without confusing the initial charge with the outcome of the trial.